posted by Mike Madison at 7:28 AM /
[Read Part I here.]
AQUATIC CENTER
Another question the Commission has been dealing with for the
last few years has been that of replacing our community swimming pool.
The current pool, completed in 1977, is at the end of its useful life.
The aluminum shell of the pool is buckling in places, and the
underground piping is in danger of failing. It is possible to get a few
more years out of the existing facility, but it is safe to say that
simply putting band-aids on the current pool is not a long-term
solution.
That being said, the real issue has been how to proceed. A few
years ago, there was a proposal for the Township and School District to
build an indoor natatorium that would combine competitive swimming with
a community facility. Largely out of reasons of cost, this proposal was
abandoned. About 14 months ago, we commissioned the aquatic firm of
Counsilman-Hunsaker to conduct an aquatic feasibility study for
replacing the current community pool. There were three public input
sessions in which citizens and stakeholder groups could voice their
ideas and concerns for a new facility. There was also a blog for
persons to post their comments and ideas online.
Counsilman-Hunsaker came up with an aquatic feasibility report
which discussed five separate options for a new facility. Each one of
these options contained cost and revenue estimates which took into
account demographic trends and inflation. The options ranged from
simply replacing the current 50-meter pool to an elaborate indoor
facility along the lines of the abandoned proposal for a combined
school-community facility. The indoor options (there were actually two
of these) are essentially off the table at this point. They are
cost-prohibitive, and the school district has indicated a lack of
interest in revisiting the combined facility idea.
At this time, there are three Counsilman-Hunsaker outdoor
options being considered. One is to simply replace the existing pool
with another 50-meter pool. The cost estimate for this proposal is
about $6.6 million. Another proposal is for a single body of water
which would combine a 25-meter competitive element with a recreational
element. This option has a $7.37 million cost estimate. The final of
the existing options still on the table is for two separate bodies of
water - a 50-meter competitive pool and a separate body for recreational
use. The estimate for this proposal is $9.96 million.
Under the latter two options, for the recreational element of
the facility, the idea of zero-depth entry (i.e., like a beach or as
with Dormont Pool) has some support. The recreational element would
also encompass amenities such as slides and fountains (something the
existing pool has). The idea for a vortex and/or "lazy river" has
also come up as a recreational element. Finally, there appears to be
some support for heating a new facility, something the existing pool
does not have. Having heated water could potentially increase the use
the pool would get in June, which can be on the cool side.
At recent Commission discussion sessions, there have been
concerns over cost raised. The replacement of the pool would be a
capital improvement project, necessitating the floating of a bond issue.
A bond issue requires four affirmative votes by the Commission.
Although I certainly would like to see Mt. Lebanon having a first-class
community aquatic facility for the long-term, there are legitimate
budgetary concerns about the debt service on such a significant
undertaking. At this time, I believe the support does exist on the
Commission to go forward with a project to build a new facility. I am
not sure the support is there, however, to go forward with the most
expensive of the outdoor options. I have also heard from citizens who
do not want to see a facility that essentially makes Mt. Lebanon's
pool as "Sandcastle-Mt. Lebanon." I do not believe even the most
elaborate of the existing options does that.
At this point, I cannot predict with certainty as to whether the
Commission will go forward with budgeting for the aquatic center before
the end of this year. There will be three new Commissioners coming to
office in January, and there may be a feeling among the outgoing members
of the Commission to defer to the new group coming in. It is also
possible that we may ask Counsilman-Hunsaker to come up with a hybrid
option that combines some of the desirable elements of the existing
proposals with an eye toward keeping the costs down. I am confident
that the Commission will proceed with a new facility, but it may be a
year before we act.
AQUATIC CENTER
Another question the Commission has been dealing with for the
last few years has been that of replacing our community swimming pool.
The current pool, completed in 1977, is at the end of its useful life.
The aluminum shell of the pool is buckling in places, and the
underground piping is in danger of failing. It is possible to get a few
more years out of the existing facility, but it is safe to say that
simply putting band-aids on the current pool is not a long-term
solution.
That being said, the real issue has been how to proceed. A few
years ago, there was a proposal for the Township and School District to
build an indoor natatorium that would combine competitive swimming with
a community facility. Largely out of reasons of cost, this proposal was
abandoned. About 14 months ago, we commissioned the aquatic firm of
Counsilman-Hunsaker to conduct an aquatic feasibility study for
replacing the current community pool. There were three public input
sessions in which citizens and stakeholder groups could voice their
ideas and concerns for a new facility. There was also a blog for
persons to post their comments and ideas online.
Counsilman-Hunsaker came up with an aquatic feasibility report
which discussed five separate options for a new facility. Each one of
these options contained cost and revenue estimates which took into
account demographic trends and inflation. The options ranged from
simply replacing the current 50-meter pool to an elaborate indoor
facility along the lines of the abandoned proposal for a combined
school-community facility. The indoor options (there were actually two
of these) are essentially off the table at this point. They are
cost-prohibitive, and the school district has indicated a lack of
interest in revisiting the combined facility idea.
At this time, there are three Counsilman-Hunsaker outdoor
options being considered. One is to simply replace the existing pool
with another 50-meter pool. The cost estimate for this proposal is
about $6.6 million. Another proposal is for a single body of water
which would combine a 25-meter competitive element with a recreational
element. This option has a $7.37 million cost estimate. The final of
the existing options still on the table is for two separate bodies of
water - a 50-meter competitive pool and a separate body for recreational
use. The estimate for this proposal is $9.96 million.
Under the latter two options, for the recreational element of
the facility, the idea of zero-depth entry (i.e., like a beach or as
with Dormont Pool) has some support. The recreational element would
also encompass amenities such as slides and fountains (something the
existing pool has). The idea for a vortex and/or "lazy river" has
also come up as a recreational element. Finally, there appears to be
some support for heating a new facility, something the existing pool
does not have. Having heated water could potentially increase the use
the pool would get in June, which can be on the cool side.
At recent Commission discussion sessions, there have been
concerns over cost raised. The replacement of the pool would be a
capital improvement project, necessitating the floating of a bond issue.
A bond issue requires four affirmative votes by the Commission.
Although I certainly would like to see Mt. Lebanon having a first-class
community aquatic facility for the long-term, there are legitimate
budgetary concerns about the debt service on such a significant
undertaking. At this time, I believe the support does exist on the
Commission to go forward with a project to build a new facility. I am
not sure the support is there, however, to go forward with the most
expensive of the outdoor options. I have also heard from citizens who
do not want to see a facility that essentially makes Mt. Lebanon's
pool as "Sandcastle-Mt. Lebanon." I do not believe even the most
elaborate of the existing options does that.
At this point, I cannot predict with certainty as to whether the
Commission will go forward with budgeting for the aquatic center before
the end of this year. There will be three new Commissioners coming to
office in January, and there may be a feeling among the outgoing members
of the Commission to defer to the new group coming in. It is also
possible that we may ask Counsilman-Hunsaker to come up with a hybrid
option that combines some of the desirable elements of the existing
proposals with an eye toward keeping the costs down. I am confident
that the Commission will proceed with a new facility, but it may be a
year before we act.
Labels: john daley, mt. lebanon commission
2 Comments:
Not disclosed in this "Newsletter" item are the very real economic realities of the pool options favored by Mr. Daley... and the 116 member Aqua Club. This information comes from, and be derived from, the pages of the consulting report that can be accessed on the Muni. website :
1) the $7.37 million option, now appearing in the Muni's 2008-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)..also on website..and scheduled for consideration in the 2008 budget... would generate an annual total cash LOSS of over $600,000 annually based on only a 3 month summer operation,or $200,000 per month! That performance is based on 35% of the users of this pool being nonresidents of Lebo. Furthermore. such a pool complex with projected usage (86,000 vs. 55,000 currently)would require that 240 parking spaces be available, just for the pool ... not including the needs for the ice rink,meeting/program rooms,main park & playground, picnic pavilions, basketball courts, giant sandbox. There is no room for the required additional parking required...unless you want to buy the notion of a commissioner supporting this option that"people can park in the High School parking lot and walk down the hill to the Rec Center"? If usage by nonresidents is less than 35%, increase the annual cash losses by $tens of thousands.
2)a second favored option, particularly by the Aqua Club, is the even higher cost , $9.96 million version that would generate total annual(over 3 months)LOSSES of over $900,000... with even higher usage and parking requirements. However, this option features a 50-meter competitive pool AND a 750 seat bleacher for observers to view the rare national meets that might be scheduled here (and not Oakland).
3)Commissioner Daley failed to inform us of another option that the consultant was asked to cost estimate by the Commission after the shock impact of his report had subsided a bit. This option came in at $4.6 million, and amounted to just replacing the existing pool, with no added bells&bugles.
When you're promoting major capital expenditures, particularly when perhaps 100% debt financing will be required that will likely require millage increases that will affect likely more than 70% of the Lebo households who will not use the pool, to include even just a little of the projects economics? OK ?
In his original posting, Mr. Daley said that "At this time, there are only three..... (pool)options being considered. One is to simply replace the existing pool with another 50-meter pool...cost estimate is $6.6 million"--- Hold your horses, Mr. Daley! That option includes far more than just replacing the 50-meter pool. Refer to page 4 of the Counsilman+Hunsaker report and later in the detailed narrative and get a load of the "adders".In addition to just replacing the 50-meter pool (with 4-diving boards)there will be added 750 spectator seats,new tot pool/spray ground, two pool heaters,a new bathhouse,snack bar & 7 shade structures ! Not JUST a new 50-meter pool, Mr.Daley. The "just replacing the 50-meter pool" option was the one that you all quietly asked the consultant to cost-out after his report was released-- the one I referred to in my previous comment as being $4.6 million... a $2.0 million difference!
If anyone doubts the annual cash losses associated with the favored or any of the proposed options, please turn to page 7 of the Counsilman+Hunsaker report for proforma's. The consultant properly assigns the debt service costs to each of the options because that is what it really costs in total. However, the MUNI wil try to have you believe and accept that the debt service costs do not exist or do not have to be directly assigned to the projects operating costs-- anyone want to try that one at your private sector workplace? They will try to have you believe that it is "appropriate" to consider only direct operating costs,excluding financing or debt service costs, because debt service is paid for from a separate fund reserved for that purpose --- funding that fund will come from increased taxes because pool usage and revenues will not cover the costs of associated borrowings necessary to pay for the construction of the "Aquatic Centers".
And finally, Mr. Daley did not inform you that the added heaters in his replace-only-the-pool, $6.6 million option will not only add to the projects capital costs but further add $30,000-$40,000 in annual(over only 3-months)operating costs to achieve 2-weeks of additional "season"to the pool,due essentially to added energy costs. Anyone ever calculate the btu's required to heat a gallon of water 1-degree F? And then multiply that by the number of gallons of circulating water in any of the pool options ? And then multiply that by both the temp. gradient increase you need to achieve , and then the $cost per btu.It adds up, folks, and it ain't "green" in the energy conservation sense either.
Post a Comment
<< Home